Digital darkroom equipment questions

J. Clarke wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Stefan Patric wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:11:31 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , Stefan Patric
wrote:

Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable
for serious image processing and such.

nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac.
prices are similar for similar configurations.


but Macs are and always
have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent
PC hardware.

maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and
certainly not now that they are intel based.

Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more
expensive
than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to
New Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz
Duo
Core Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower
from Dell, Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550. A nice
20" flat panel adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac
costs 50% more, which in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any
faster or "better."

Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet,
bluetooth,
wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.

Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.

And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Stefan Patric wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:11:31 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , Stefan Patric
wrote:

Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
serious image processing and such.

nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac.
prices are similar for similar configurations.


but Macs are and always
have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent PC
hardware.

maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and certainly not
now that they are intel based.

Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more expensive
than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to New
Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz Duo Core
Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower from Dell,
Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550. A nice 20" flat panel
adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac costs 50% more, which
in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any faster or "better."

Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth,
wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.

And a very decent monitor, unlike the ones shipped the majority of
box shifting PCs.
I use PC's at work and if I shift a little to the left or right I can hardly
see
what's on the display. I can certain see the individual pixels when looking
close,
something I can't see on my iMac. Sound quality is also a lot better on my
iMac than
a box PC.
And I'm not embarrasest to have my iMac seen or heard, and I can sleep with
the iMac
on but most PC's I've seen And I have 36 of these in my work lab, I can't
get a wink of sleep
at work with them buzzing and whirling away !!!!!!!!!! ;-)

Ï "Ray Fischer" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
J. Clarke wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Stefan Patric wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:11:31 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , Stefan Patric
wrote:

Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable
for serious image processing and such.

nonsense. there is no need to spend 'lots of money' for a mac.
prices are similar for similar configurations.


but Macs are and always
have been more expensive, by a considerable amount, to equivalent
PC hardware.

maybe a very long time ago they were, but not recently and
certainly not now that they are intel based.

Yes, a long time ago and today as well: Macs are still more
expensive
than a similarly configured PC system. All you have to do is go to
New Egg or Best Buy or Fry's and compare. For example, a 2.4 GHz
Duo
Core Intel iMac with 2 GB RAM is around $1200; a similar PC tower
from Dell, Acer, HP w/o a monitor is around $450 to $550. A nice
20" flat panel adds $200 to $250. So, say $800 total. The iMac
costs 50% more, which in my book, is "a lot more" and it's not any
faster or "better."

Add a video camera,
15 euros for one.
microphone,
another 15 euros
speakers,
30 euros with subwoofer
gigabit ethernet,
built in on my mobo
bluetooth,
15 euros
wireless networking
20 euros for the receiver
, video editing software, firewire,
firewirecard with Ulead video studio 8.0 15 euros not the best but a good
workhorse
and dual
monitor support
My asus ati 2600 pro is dual head
and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.

Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.

And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.

--
Of course, a mac is better than a PC, likewise a rolex is better than a 30
euros casio G-Shock digital watch, likewise a Mercedes is better than a
Volkswagen beetle.... But not everybody can afford a Mac! Especially in
Greece, when I was serving in Rhodes, I met a cartoonist who is the only
person I met that has a mac in greece. Not even my godmother, who's rich. Of
course, a Canon 1Ds MkIII is better than my P&S, but I save my money to pay
my insurance/pension plan, and to get new tools, and it would be highly
unlikely even if I could afford a DSLR (and it would be a Canon digital
rebel, aka 1000D, so I'd rather have a good P&S than a crappy dSLR), and
then what purpose would it serve? Taking photos every weekend of my niece
(getting 2 at 9/2 that's ninth of February).

Just my 2 cents....



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:

Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth,
wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.

Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.

And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.

That's possible. Buy a Mac and install Vista under VirtualBox
(www.virtualbox.org) on it. Both OSes run simultaneously on the same
machine. Unfortunately, don't think it can be done--yet--the other way
around, that is, running OS X in VirtualBox on a non-Mac host.


Stef

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:

Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth,
wireless networking, video editing software, firewire, and dual
monitor support and the price difference gets to be rather smaller.

Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.

And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows Vista.

That's possible. Buy a Mac and install Vista under VirtualBox
(www.virtualbox.org) on it.

I use Fusion.

Both OSes run simultaneously on the same
machine.

Too bad that the best video performance requires booting into Vista.

Unfortunately, don't think it can be done--yet--the other way
around, that is, running OS X in VirtualBox on a non-Mac host.

Not yet and not likely ever.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
Stefan Patric wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00:18 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:

Add a video camera, microphone, speakers, gigabit ethernet,
bluetooth, wireless networking, video editing software,
firewire,
and dual monitor support and the price difference gets to be
rather smaller.

Yeah, that's the problem. I for one don't _want_ a video camera,
microphone, speakers, bluetooth, or wireless networking.

And I want one computer than can run both Mac OS and Windows
Vista.

That's possible. Buy a Mac and install Vista under VirtualBox
(www.virtualbox.org) on it.

I use Fusion.

Both OSes run simultaneously on the same
machine.

Too bad that the best video performance requires booting into Vista.

Unfortunately, don't think it can be done--yet--the other way
around, that is, running OS X in VirtualBox on a non-Mac host.

Not yet and not likely ever.

Google "OSX cracks" and "OSX vmware".

Apple doesn't want anybody running OSX on non-Apple hardware and have
made it just as obnoxious in its own way as Microsoft's "Vista phone
home" protection system.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In message , Stefan Patric
writes

If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?

Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
serious image processing and such.


The GOOD NEWS is that many "serious" MAC users are changing over to the
new Intel MACS. You can pick up a PPC G5 MAC for very little these are
very easy to add hard discs and memory to. They are a real bargain.
Also you may be able to pick up some Sw as part of the deal.

The good news is that MS Office for Mac is better than on the PC :-)

I run with 2 GB RAM a primary drive of 260GB, a Secondary drive of 500GB
and an external high speed fire ware 1TB Drive. They work with any
decent PC screen. I use a 22inch wide screen,

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/